This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.

The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.

Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

A list of possible autobiographies found by bot. This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

For anyone looking into this, please keep an eye on the revision history. The user still doesn't seem to understand that they should not remove COI templates (or AFC comments) until the article has been reviewed. See this revision just 20 minutes ago. – numbermaniac 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

He's again gone and removed the template with no explanation in the edit summary. He either doesn't understand it despite a billion explanations on his talk page, or he deliberately doesn't care. Is there something we can do about this? – numbermaniac 05:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Another new user, with a one week old account, has created a draft at Draft:AFRICA POLICY INSTITUTE (API). This user appears to be following the process by submitting their draft for review properly, but the content of the article is, in large parts, identical to the original at Draft:Africa Policy Institute. Don't know if this user is an undisclosed paid editor, but this might be worth keeping a watch on. – numbermaniac 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

My guess it's a "you can't fire me I quit" situation in light of the Arbitration case that's about to be opened to look at what he's been doing offwiki. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well not quite, as he says "I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." So I think it's more a case of "you can fire me, but I will have already quit". A shame really as this was, as far as I can see, a big mistake rather than something really malicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And a big loss to Wikipedia, that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Mistake no doubt, but that wasn't a reason enough for indef or a retirement. hope he returns back someday.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This article appears to be one of several targets of an organized, coordinated editing effort by members of the subject organization. See the article's talk page for details. I came across the article while patrolling for vandalism, and am not going to intervene myself at this time as the issues are complex, the edits are not vandalism, and the subject matter is outside my area of expertise. The article could use attention from neutral editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

UDC does not like sources that define them as White Supremicist, KKK supporters, proponants of the Lost Cause narrative and other such truisms. More eyes always needed at UDC Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that quite a few of us are already aware of this issue, but as Legacypac notes, more editors having the article on their watchlists would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this edit by User:Amy Catherine R while I was RC Patrolling the edit filter log, and it caught my interest by the wording, so I took a closer look at the page history. A lot of it seemed like PR to me, and was almost identical to this edit from May. I came to the conclusion that the editor might have been an undisclosed paid contributor, so I warned them with the paid disclosure template, none of which have been answered. Looking further at the page history, it seems that editors that have claimed to be from WPA Intelligence in the past have made edits to this article going as far back as 2012. Because of that, I tagged the article as having a potential COI as well as a potentially undisclosed paid editor involved in it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts as spam only accounts. Alex Shih (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Yes, editing under a COI is to be discouraged, but it has never been outright banned, and the content here seems fairly neutrally worded. The recent additions are of a tone I would expect of someone to write in who didn't have a conflict of interest. If you had written it, I wouldn't change a word of it. For that reason, I don't see the issues with the recent edits. COI is only an issue when it produces bad writing, and when it doesn't, I don't see the problem. We only require that people declare their COIs and that they write otherwise neutral text. The user seems to have done both. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these edits look fine to me as well and seems to be within existing guidelines. Only when they start to insert promotional/corporate puffery under the disguise of "updated information" I would start to be alarmed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Well they have in the past... Just because these recent edits are okay doesn't mean they can subvert WP:COI and only request-edit when they think it'll be problematic, can they? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 14:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Negative material being removed without explanation, and replaced by more positive material. Failure to use edit summaries, failure to respond to User talk notices. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

General advice on COI policy - New article I am creating - advice if this is a COI issue?[edit]

Hi - I'm a University librarian (in the Business faculty) and a Wikipedian. I'm creating a page for an academic staff member who is also a composer of note in another faculty (Music). Is this of itself, a COI issue? While we both work for the same institution, he isn't in the same department, and I'm not otherwise connected to him, and not doing it for the cash....just to help out. Any advice here would be good, thanks!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deathlibrarian, and thanks for reaching out in advance for advice. I see you've been around Wikipedia for a long time so I imagine you are pretty well-versed in policies and guidelines. If you aren't representing his interests, then I don't see a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, putting a brief note on your userpage (User:Deathlibrarian), summarizing you wrote above, would reassure everyone that you are editing in good faith. If you have any kind of personal or professional relationship with him as a colleague, friend or acquaintance, it would be good to note that. Here's an example I whipped up, which you could alter to your liking:

I work for (institution). I created an article about (person), who is also a faculty member at (institution). I am not being paid to write about him. (Any other relevant details)

Perhaps other will have different opinions, but I think that should be enough. Good luck with your article! --Drm310🍁 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much Drm310, I'll do that.If anyone else has anything else to add, or sees it as an issue, please comment - (I've now added the draft of the article to this post as well).Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

New user; username suggests they are affiliated with or representing the subject organization. The only 2 edits so far have included removal of the Undisclosed Paid COI template from the article. Amp71 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amp71. I left a response on my User talk page. Apologies for the confusion. My previous edits were not meant to include removing the 'Undisclosed Paid' COI (I'm not a native coder) and I must've deleted it while drafting new text. The goal of updates was to refresh the history, funding rounds, and current offerings of the company. How do I best disclose that I work for Epic Sciences when posting? Thanks, EpicSciences (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated, MeproUS was warned about COI with no response and then another new user Cadlaxer23 shows up and starts making edits. shoy(reactions) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Returning to an editor I took an interest in previously, NeedaAnsari00 created a number of suspiciously-high quality articles before ceasing to edit. I asked them about having a possible COI, but they continued to edit without responding. However, I recently was contacted on my talk page at User_talk:SamHolt6#Conflict_of_Interest/Paid by the subject of one of the articles created (albeit because of a different issue), where they more-or-less confirmed they were in contact with the editors who created their article. As such, it seems fairly easy to conclude (when given the quality, disparate topics, and disappearance upon being questioned) that NeedaAnsari00 was at the very least a COI editor and at the worst an undisclosed paid editor. I have boldly moved several of the articles they created and edited without the input of other editors. I started this thread to inform other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

While perusing the AFC feed, I noticed an interesting phenomena. Before I begin reviewing an article (Walczak's), I always check to see if the author may have a conflict of interest. While the article seemed clean, (for some reason) I clicked back on the new pages feed. I don't know how to explain this with words (in an efficient manner) so here is an image. Im not really sure what the protocol for handling this is, so I figured I would ask.

Pages on this artist are being spammed. I can't see what account has been doing the previous spamming because the articles have been deleted. The account is probably a sockpuppet, but I need admin help to identify the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not spamming at all. Just one article was created two days ago. Since it was deleted we responsibly created a DRAFT to be examined by Wikipedia. It was deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm5791 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Scm5791 - Who is "we"? You say that you "responsibly created a draft", but creating copyright violation is not responsible. Anyway, in Wikipedia, one account should belong to one human. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You apparently have something to do with the most recent version, which was deleted as a copyright violation, as I stated above. See the guidance at the link I posted above. General IzationTalk 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I will try to post a draft of Leonid Afremov with my own words. Not Copy/Paste from other websites. Thank you. scm5791 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen is involved in a discussion regarding the External Links section at Military history. They have a close connection to two of the links: Web Sources for Military History and H-War. Rjensen's conduct and editing seem to be entirely appropriate, however I have encouraged him to disclose his COI when discussing these sites, which he disagrees with. This is a very minor issue and there's no need for sanctions, but I'd like to get input from a few uninvolved editors. –dlthewave☎ 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do own "Web Sources for Military History" and americanhistoryprojects.com. the possible COI issue was not hidden-- another editor already raised COI about the website and they dismissed COI as not an issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=873954699 As I told Dlthewave, I think I am following the COI two guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. On the second point, H-War. No. I have no "close connection" with H-WAR--I am a subscriber like thousands of people & I posted a few messages in recent years. It is one of 200+ academic discussion lists published by H-NET-- i was one of the leaders of H-Net when 130 new lests were created in the mid 1990s. Richard J. Jensen covers my permanent departure from H-Net in 1997. (I did remain active on some lists until a few years ago, but not H-War). I suggest that "close connection" is not a useful criterion here regarding ne & either H-War or H-Net. I did complain that the guidelines on COI are very vague --they seem to be specific only on paid editing (I was never paid to edit) and I hope the folks here can make some improvements. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a non-issue. It would be one thing if Rjensen was editing articles on those sites, but participating in a discussion on a related article about a list of external links which includes them? Come on. A formal disclosure would be completely over the top. – Joe(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if others don't see it as an issue, I'll let it go. Thanks for your perspective Joe Roe. –dlthewave☎ 02:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Huge Amount of Paid Editing and Paid article creation is done in India[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please Take a look at these articles most of the artcles are just "GRADE SCHOOLS" and we all know that grade schools are not notable at all.
The citation provided are not independent, and grades school are not notable these types of articles are created by such private school to attract students so they can increase their PROFITS, it's a very common practice in india. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11 And also check who creates such advertisements he should be banned from editing Wikipedia there are more than 1000s of such non-notable paid advertisements in English Wikipedia.

You are my last hope for Independent Wikipedia in India. parents are forced to pay high fees in these schools as we all trust wikipedia, and these schools take advantage of it.

I'll encourage you to bring a list of non-notable elementary schools here (start small) and also to take some others directly to AfD. My feeling is that almost no elementary schools are notable unless they have something special about them such as being a historic site, being the teacher of x Nobel Prize Winners (well there's at least one high school that should be notable that way), or perhaps a "founding school" of a well-known teaching method. This will take a lot of work to clean up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ponyo, could you provide minimal details about the indefinite checkuser-block of Nuksanhai, and/or if this should affect this noticeboard thread in any way? Are we being trolled or is this a legitimate request by a currently-banned user? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Both users are WP:SPAs. The newer one - CliveMilkychops has only edited Human Appeal. Ed1911 has also edited Othman Moqbel (former CEO of Human Appeal) and Nooh al-Kaddo (former trustee). Both users are attempting to remove controversies involving the organization, while relying on somewhat dodgy sourcing (an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist in MEE). Icewhiz (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am self-reporting a possible COI and invite the editors to review my contributions to the page. Also, I am unclear whether my contributions fall under COI because I have volunteered with the non-profit in the past, without any benefits (financial or otherwise). I have taken special care for before making any edits, but would like some feedback about my situation. More discussion here [3]